One of the foundations of our modern American representative democracy is the public assumption that elected government officials will at least attempt in good faith to be responsive to the wishes of their constituents. We witnessed a praiseworthy example of representative democracy in action just this week, as our Emerald City Council, having been made acutely aware by public furor of its own public policy error, reversed course entirely, decisively corrected a clearly inequitable salary situation, and wisely rescinded Boss Godfrey's punitive public safety officer pay package.
We have no doubt at all that Tuesday night's council policy reversal was at least in part the product of public input, and that the council's corrective vote was the most positive sign of legislative health yet exhibited by our new city council. "The people just want us to do what's right," one council member remarked with a big smile after adjournment of that remarkable council session. Indeed, we believe the Council did just that on Tuesday night. We believe most of them got the same message.
Yet we read this morning's Standard-Examiner editorial, which comes off as remarkably "snarky" in tone. While the Std-Ex editorial writer sets forth a list of plausible issues that the council obviously may have taken into consideration before delivering its unanimous vote, the Std-Ex nevertheless deviates, and concludes with this editorial hogwash:
But back to the question of the City Council's flip-flop regarding the public safety evaluations: Did council members finally believe it was time to halt the ongoing embarrassment of at least one police officer and his wife -- and possibly others involved -- renting a moving van plastered with anti-mayor signs complaining about ticket quotas being parked around town? Either that, or maybe it was an opportunity to pin it all on the mayor, who had advocated for the job-performance ordinance which was nonetheless passed by the council in June."Shifting winds of public comment?" What shifting winds, we ask? It seems to us that the public only became aroused upon learning the true facts. And we have our Emerald City Firefighters and Police officers almost solely to thank for that. The Standard-Examiner deserves virtually NO CREDIT for educating its readership about the true issues here. As far as we're concerned, the Std-Ex has been too busy toeing the Boss Godfrey Party Line, and ridiculing the plainly successful OPBA public-educational campaign.
Yet another theory may be the most believable of all: The Ogden City Council's decisions change with surprising agility according to the shifting winds of public comment.
Except for the noble actions of "Ogden's Finest," the general public would still be mostly in the dark about oppressive ticket quotas, punitive pay-scales -- and of course the Godfrey Cash Cow Connection.
And "pinning it" on the mayor? If the shoe fits; wear it, we say.
We're also going to hammer two additional points here:
The "Blue Flu Epidemic" was not an abdication of public safety responsibilities, as the Standard-Examiner continues to shrilly and monotonously contend. It was merely a legally-conducted public demonstration, intended to shake the citizenry out of its stupor, in our belief. Neighboring police agencies adequately and gracefully filled in and took up the slack willingly, in a very apparent act of solidarity with their brother and sister OPD officers. We have heard from several police officers from neighboring or overlapping jurisdictions that "the shoe might be" sometime "on the other foot." And public safety was NEVER jeopardized during the weekend that the OPD officers staged their sickout. Contrary assertions are simply preposterous, we think.
The Std-Ex editors keep harping on the OPD rolling billboard, as if it were some sort of illegitimate ruse. In this connection we'll note that rolling billboards are a highly efficient and cost effective means of advertising, commonly used across the country. (In this connection we also make special note that Councilman Filiaga used truck-mounted billboards extensively here in Emerald City during at least his first successful council campaign, so this is really nothing new in the Land of Oz.)
We think today's Std-Ex editorial smacks of sour grapes, inasmuch as "Ogden's Finest" managed to skillfully disseminate their message, notwithstanding the efforts of the Standard-Examiner to keep a tight lid on the facts.
And what think our gentle readers about this?
56 comments:
Well, the Standard, or "SubStandard" as they are becoming known, missed the whole point - again.
This dismal editorial is a good example of why they are becoming more irrelevent every day.
With the exception of Grondahl, Trendelman and an occasional streak of brilliance from Porter, the Standard is pretty much useless outside of the occasional bird cage.
Rudi, you're right as rain on this one. I attend most council meetings and many work sessions, and NEVER have I seen Don Porter's face at ANY of them. This "Editor," and I use the term rather loosely, gets his info from crack reporter Scott Schwebki, and as hard as maybe Scott tries, he rarely gets all the facts in his stories. Much is left to the imagination of the readers.
For Porter to come across as he did is, and fortunatly it's his opinion only but as they say, "the pen is mightier than the sword," is taking a whole bunch of journalistic license since the guy was nowhere to be seen that night. I've never been much of a fan of Porter, and with his assumptive bathering in today's editorial, you can probably see why. The guy takes entirely too many liberties and then justifies and rationalizes them if somebody turns up the heat. His justification of the Clearfiled Mayor's resignation was laughable (the people's right to know, et al).
This "righting a wrong," as one Council Member put it, was indeed the correct thing to do. Nevermind what went on in the streets that caught so many people's attention. The Council seemed to recognize, for whatever reason, that their June vote was in error and had been working hard on this issue ever since it realized that significance.
A re-visit was tried and failed, most likely because it was merely a "re-visit." Unless approached and treated with the utmost of caution, what happened today in the Standard would happen again, and most likely in the Public sector to boot. Won't take a mental giant to use the same ploy as we saw over the last few weeks to attempt to get the Council to turn around another controversial vote. It worked once, it will work again, and if that takes hold, the Council will expend an inordinate amount of time trying to put these types of fires out instead of working on city business. This is the phenomina of "perception," the perception by some as to why this sudden change of attitude, and now they have a roadmap available to effect change on the next vote that goes against someone's grain.
This is all just a part of what might be running through the minds of the Council members, and "righting a wrong" has to be done clearly and with caution. It's like walking on thin ice: it can crack in a heartbeat and take one down. Maybe that's what took the Council to, what some feel an inordinate amount of time, clear this mess up. Now done, however, one can now see the "spin" that some have placed on what was really an appropriate action.
I watch and listen as our City Government plows through these political minefields, wondering why anyone would want to take on that responsibility. They are loved by half the people and hated by the other half, depending on where one stands on an issue. And when a REAL controversial issue comes up, they know that somewhere, someway, some of them will take a beating, simply because they are trying to do a job to the best of one's ability and do what one considers to be in the City's best interest. We have just experienced that here today by some bafoon who never takes in a meeting yet forms an opinion as to the what, where, why, and how, things happen while relying on second hand information and hearsay in order for him to jot down his words and have them read by over 60,000 readers. The "power of the pen." Dangerous, in the hands of some. And we've yet to hear from the public.
Maybe the next time the Council votes on an issue that seems a bit unpopular, or throws one for the proverbial loop as to "why the hell did they do that?" we'll only have to look at this, and other stellar lead Editorials, to figure out why.
I can only imagine what kind of fervor the gondola (seems nice to have that thing taking a backseat for awhile) will generate, once it gets its steam back and is up and running again. Don't you just love Ogden City politics?
I have been trying to understand exactly what the participants on this blog are concerned about as it relates to the Chris Peterson project. I cannot determine if they are against anything that the mayor may suggest, or if they do not believe it will bring business or if they do not want any kind of change to the community.
If some of you would not mind ansering the following question it might help me.
If you knew for sure, and I am not saying there is such a company, that a company was coming to downtown Ogden and this company was large enough to fill every office space in the Old FIRST SECURITY BANK building and build another 500,000 square foot warehouse in or near the BDO, would you continue to be against working with Chris Peterson to develope the gondola project in the best manner possible? This fictious company will only come if the gondola conects the downtown to the University and the mountain.
Please don't attack me just answer the question with a yes or a no.
Curt Geiger
Mr. Geiger:
This are just facts - not an attack on your credibility.
I have seen and inspected your Descente product. What I inspected was built in China, of inferior quality and construction and way overpriced for what it was.
There is evidently a question being surfaced of the legality of building a gondola with public funds that cannot pass the stringent requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act for transporting handicapped persons.
Curt,
If that were the case, why would Mr. petersen need the city of Ogden to indemify his investment? Wouldn't a private investor back him?
Curt: My answer (speaking only for myself) is no. We can and will continue to improve downtown without sacrificing our foothills. The streetcar alone, in the long run, will do more for downtown than a gondola and your hypothetical company combined.
More insider secret hand shake shit from the master purveyor of Gondola Ill logic.
Remember, this is the same guy that was going to lasso 10% of the pipe dream 3 million motorists heading to Yellowstone. He was going to get them to pull off and ride the Gondola and pay for it all by themselves.
This guy is a clueless rag merchant. Appears that even his rags are second rate.
MOMB, you amaze me. A few of your numbered items are OK, but you do have some flaws:
#2 Malan's Basin is and has been privately owned....thus it's name;
#3 I suppose you advocate the moving of EVERY house along the Wasatch Front, from Bluffdale to Perry;
#4 There are water lines, etc. already in place, on and around the fault lines....what do you propose that we do with those?
#5 What does a flooding that occurs around WSU have to do with anything....there are French drains, sump pumps, a syriad of ways to aleviate this concern....and how many houses have basements that flood that are not on the campus....they are all over the valley, especially in the lower lying areas;
#6 It might have been nice if the City, and everyone else, would have asked the Malan's about putting trails across their land....just because they are there, doesn't mean they were put their with the older generation of owner's OK (they weren't);
#7 Mount Ogden is not fine just the way it is....it's an OK course, but it ain't no Thanksgiving Point and could use a re-do;
#8 a little money coming into the city coffers couldn't hurt....might want to consider that;
#9 Give me a break....there are several "gated communities" in this "middle class" city and none of them has aggravted a "situation" between rich and poor....give the people some credit, pal, who really cares?
#10 You "hear" he hasn't even paid his property taxes....boy, that's something to go on, what you "hear." The process will show the "tangibles" that seem to have you so upset....relax, and let it run its course;
#11 Apparently you haven't kept yourself up to date on this one....Peterson will maintain the gonodla and where did you get the idea that the UTA will take care of streets and maintenance for a bus or rail system?
#12 Show me the proof that there won't be 1200 jobs and that everything has been misrepresented....sure, there have been some exagerations, but EVERYTHING? Come on.
#13 Nothing that you've put down should stop this project from at least being presented, let alone just one.
Momb, you just don't have your facts right. Get with it, study up, do some research, and remember, it's a process that Peterson has the right to explore.
The streetcar would much better serve the needs of the student body of WSU-where is everybody going to park for the 23rd St. station?
City Weekly story on Godfry:
This weeks SL City Weekly has a story on Mayor Godfrey entitled: "Godfrey Forbid: Before Expressing An Opinion In Ogden, Make Sure It's The Same As The Mayor's." It's about Godfrey's attempts to silence public criticism of the city's government. I can't find an on-line link for it but it's worth picking up a City Weekly [back to school edition] to find the article.
Here it is:
Godfrey Forbid
Where do they come up...
Ah, wonderful. Your post is more evidence, as if we needed it, of the desperate straits to which the LO Amen Choir has apparently been driven. As evidence I offer this, from your post:
#12 Show me the proof that there won't be 1200 jobs....
Ahem. It is the Lift Ogden Ask No Questions Amen Chorus that has been claiming, for about a year now, that the Peterson/Godfrey/Gondola/Gondola proposals will generate 1200 jobs. Given the claim, it is their obligation to establish that the claim is factual. That it will happen. I know the Mayor has been asked, repeatedly at his little weekday night by-invitation-only soirees on what he basis this claim. He has refused, repeatedly, to say. { I know. I asked him at one meeting. Mrs. Curmudgeon asked him at another.] His reply the night I was there was that he wouldn't provide that information because all people who asked for it wanted to do was criticize it.
When LO and the Mayor are willing to explain on what they base their claims that the scheme will generate 1200 jobs and $5 million or $10 million in tax revenues [the number changes now and then], then we can have, perhaps, a reasonable discussion about how probable those outcomes are --- or are not. Not until then, though.
Otherwise we can all paddle off into la-la land and demand that others prove we are wrong. Can you prove that the trolley plan endorsed by the city's paid consultants will not generate 1600 jobs over the same ten to 20 years Mr. Peterson says it will take for his plans to be completed? Come on, prove it won't. Right now. Can you prove trolley related development, which has led to huge re-investment in cities that have put it in, like Portland, will not produce at least twice the added public revenues that are predicted for the gondola? No? Why not? Why can't you prove the trolley won't do all that? And prove it right now?
See how silly that "prove it won't" tactic is? Works on playgrounds at recess, maybe. But not when adults are trying to discuss, in a serious way, matters of public policy.
You folks are really getting desperate. Just as Mr. Geiger's hypothetical question illustrates. Really desperate. We are not dealing with hypothetical questions. We are dealing, or trying to, with the question of what would be the best solution to Ogden's mass transit problems over the next decades, and which of the possible solutions would be best for the city overall? Would generate more investment? Would improve urban life? Would expand business opportunities not only downtown but all along the transit corridor? And so on. Making up hypothetical questions to, somehow, try to take public focus off the fact that you have so far been unable to supply any supporting evidence to back up the LO claims doesn't advance the discussion much.
LO and Mayor Godfrey have not been engaged, so far, in an educational campaign with respect to the gondola and Peterson proposals. They're engaged in a marketing campaign, to sell the concept in advance of the details, any business plan, any feasibility studies, any marking studies to indicate that the various schemes [ALL of which have to work for the city gondola to be successful] have a hope in hell of succeeding.
Want the difference between the LO approach and the SGO approach to discussing these matters? Here it is in a nutshell:
SmartGrowthOgden signs ask people to "Get Involved" and to "Ask Questions." And what do the LO signs offer? "Lift Ogden: Yes!" You tell me which group is taking this discussion seriously.
Southsider:
TY for the link. Damned if I could find it on the CW site.
To Curt Geiger,
First you're suggestion that a company of that size would put those kind of condition on it's decision to relocate to Ogden is crazy. What would be their motivation, to be close to a hotel on the mountain? If you suggest skiing, I don't buy it, as we all know Malan Basin won't be connected to Snow Basin and Malan Basin won't be offering anything near world class skiing.
Second a company that big would expect that the management of the city that they would move into would be more fiscally responsible than Ogden City is showing by suggesting that we should buy into this project even before the city knows that the project is financially viable. A company of that size would expect the city to do their due diligence on any project before they invested in it or supported it. If the city makes a bad investments then the company's taxes will go up, right? The only exception to that would be when the city is developing something for that company which ought to be funded for by the company and as such the company wouldn't be acting socially responsible. I wouldn't want a company like that in this community anyway.
Key point from my point of view is that I want to first see if this is a viable project before Ogden City starts supporting it. Starting with Malan Basin, since the rest of the developments that are to be built are in support of and are to leverage off Malan Basin. If Malan Basin is not financially viable on it's own, then I don't feel there is enough motivation or incentive to entertain the rest of the projects.
Additionally, to suggest that development doesn't work unless the whole project is developed is shear B.S. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that same line used on bad deals. It's like two wrongs will make a right. The only thing that it really does is complicated the ability to make the project work and increases the risks associated with all of the individual projects.
It's like the difference between a jet and a piston driven airplane. Jets have fewer mechanical problems because they have fewer moving parts.
CP has the key assets in the Malan Basin property to develop up there without the city's assets. All he needs is the addition of a gondola to that location, which he could put in with a small contribution of land from the city for a base location. If he truely has a good plan, let's see it and let's see his money.
The rest is just a land grab.
How much serious planning and thought has been actually comitted to the gondola project?
The LO website video that starts with the WSU student interview closes with Chris Peterson clearly saying back in May:
"The objective would be to have this system ready when commuter rail reaches Ogden in 2008."
"Let's put on a show in the barn!"
Curt (oh, sorry, Anon), we aren't dealing with hypothetical companies here. We are looking at the financial future of Ogden. CP's plan (to use the phrase loosely) has the real potential to bankrupt and destroy our city.
I'm just looking for facts and answers before comitting to a gigantic risk. That isn't naysaying, that's being a prudent adult.
Have been pondering this one:
Yet another theory may be the most believable of all: The Ogden City Council's decisions change with surprising agility according to the shifting winds of public comment.
Will reply that the composition of the Ogden City Council itself, as well as the individual holding the position of Mayor, can also change with surprising rapidity according to the views of voters. After all, isn't it public opinion that gets these people into these positions in the first place?
Nine months ago, the voters of Ogden City voted people in on the Council who had promised:
That they would support the police and fire departments.
And,
That they would pay attention to the city's infrastructure.
If, as some surmise, it was a terribly scary thing for the Ogden City Council to address the pay scale in a manner favorable to the police and fire departments, fearing that future actions would then be at the mercy of public opinion, I do ask why, in view of the fact that this is what the new people on the Council said they would do in the first place, and the public voted them in partially, one assumes, because of that.
It is obvious to me, at least, that the winds of public opinion and comment on this issue did not and do not shift. The groundswell of opinion on this issue was simply the public's reiterating of its opinion last November. It didn't change.
The question is: Did the Council change? In an effort to placate, or look at all sides, or appear to be objective, did they initially temper their views on these issues, thereby weakening the strong stance that got them voted in in the first place?
Willingness to explore all sides of a question is, we all know, important in positions of leadership. But sometimes, especially if one has campaigned on an issue, one has to take a side and stick with it, unless conditions change so radically that one's initial stance is no longer viable. And the fact that the Standard Examiner and others are attempting to spin this recent event into an instance where the Council bowed to public opinion as if that were a weak thing for it to have done, is, in my opinion, simply that--spin.
Some of those on the Council simply backed up campaign promises with action, that's all. In spite of, one might add, a bit of opposition from the Administration.
Good for them.
To Curt Geiger,
I want to ask you a couple of questions.
1. In 1998 when Ogden City was trying to promote the idea of building a gondola to Snow Basin (as opposed to Malan Basin today) did you sign a petion against the project? Yes or No
If the answers yes then why?
2. Did you live in that neighborhood at that time? Yes or No
3. Why is this project to Malan Basin, only, so much better than the project in 1998?
Suffce it to say the council displyed "gonads" on this issue.
Curmudgeon, just because I threw some questions at this Momb guy, you ASSUME I'm a Lift Ogden guy, and things couldn't be further from the truth. I was doign preceidely what you were doing, asking for proof on various claims, so your argument holds not water. I could easily say that you're a member of Smart Grwoth for the way you answered me and challenged my assertions and questions....which is my point. Way too many people making claims and assertions over speculationm and I now have to add you to that groupd as you've did just what I thought maybe other would do. You jumped in with gusto over absolutely NOTHING.
Shame!
Where do they...
You are free to accuse me of being a SGO supporter any time you like. I am. And many of the arguments you raised in your first post are arguments that have been raised by LO and Hizzonnah many many times before. Not surprising then that I concluded you were one of the gang. If you are not, I apologize for lumping you in with them. And I'd have to admit that as a non-LO supporter, you have their patter down nearly perfectly. Including their desperation.
Mr. Geiger's "hypothetical" brings to mind a retort made by gentle reader Moroni McConkie, in which Curt's Beloved Baby Bobby was hinting that boom times were coming to Emerald City, if only we all would JUST SHUDDUP, suspend reason, exercise trust... and "have faith in Boss Godfrey's "wonderful gondola plan".
Per Gentle Reader McConkie:
"This has got to be one of the grandest, gaudiest comedies in Weber County since Elder Godfrey summoned the press to the equestrian stables of Lorin Farr Park. A swashbuckling ski entrepreneur ex-Marine, certifiably macho, performs for our edification a dance of the seven veils with the skill and grace of a Geisha. "Do you remember me telling your readers to watch closely ... I wish I were at liberty to tell everyone ... Watch for more Ski companies to come ..." What is this, a fugging striptease? Sheesh!"
A Note from Bob Geiger
We suspect that this cheap "striptease act style salesmanship" may run in the family.
I don't want to see development of our open space period. It's not about price, any price, it's about quality of life and that's why I moved here. Lots of people, of the kind this development is supposed to attract, already live here for the same reason as I do. Will they move if it changes?
If Peterson wants to build on his property in Malan Basin, that's up to him and I wish him luck. But I don't think he should be doing it at our expense. Leave our open space out of your development.
As for the urban gondola, wouldn't a more efficient, cost effective rail system accommodate both the city's needs and his at the same time?
From what I've read, a gondola will cost about half as much as a rail system but almost twice as much to operate, which Ogden City may someday be on the hook for. A rail system is twice as much overall money, but the government and UTA pick up 95%, i.e. we in Ogden pay 1/10 the amount of a gondola system. Additionally UTA picks up the operating costs of a rail system and the rail system is projected to move twice as many people.
Ogden is a great place to live and raise a family. Look around, if you don't see things picking up in Ogden, it's because you've got your eyes closed. We don't need to compromise on our quality of life here to accommodate people that can't see what going on right in front of their face or that want to line their pockets at the expense of our quality of life.
Well, lets just say for fun that there would be a big company come to ogden if, and only if, mayor godfrey resigned as the mayor. would he resign for the good of the city or will he only care about himself, which is it?
lets keep playing these iffy games, because that is all the Mayor and the geigers know how to do.
and for the other things that curt said about, are you against every thing the mayor does, it all depends on how it does it. which mean he really sucks at being the mayor.
which I think alot of people agree on.
signed c.a.g.e.
You can count me in among everyone who knows EVERYTHING Boss Godfrey says is wrong.
Godfrey has accomplished nothing in his seven years in office, except to increase public debt.
He's the ULTIMATE "contrarian indicator."
After watching this thing unravel over the last year or so, getting the jargon down is not an overly exceptional feat. My thing was this MOMB guy and just whiling away some time throwing out a few contradictions to hi....little did I know that's you'd jump in and there we go. You are usually a vocie of reason and moderacy, and I suppose I was a bit surprised that you'd come at me with the words you did and the length of your post. Which is OK, I was, as said, just a little surprised for I'd have thought that you, of all people, would recognize both for what they were....too much again and agian and again. Plus, I doubt the MOMB answered a decent question posed by Curt Geiger and one that deservbed, in my humble opinion, a more substantial effort. There are some, on BOTH sides, who, no matter what the arugument, just will not absolutely see the possibility of a compromise, etc.
Getting real tough out there. And keep up the good work. To date, all of this constant bickering back and forth isn't doing much except to burn time and create an environm,net with somewhat of an entertainment factor. I especially like all of these pieces wherein theirs "public rights," "prescriptive easements," all of the above that people are scrambling around with.
When it comes down, it will be handled by the legal system and all of these hypothelticals will be tossed out with yesterday's fish.
I am just a neophyte in this game called politics and public activism and I am not to proud of it. I have lived half of my life and I feel only recently that I have been born again, in some small way, by my involvement in this blog and the fight for justice with public safety. I have had the veil of naiveté removed.
Although I have no one but myself to blame for it, I think that some responsibility should be placed firmly at the door of the Standard Examiner. They obviously think that because the City Council stands back and says, “hey this was a not so good idea and maybe there is a better more just way to do things” and then take action, that they must be some flip flop reed in the wind. The City Council acted responsibly. They are, after all, responsible to THEIR CONSTUENTS, not the political whims of the Mayor or the Editorial Staff of the Standard.
I can tell you that prior to the “blu flu” Ogden police union members contacted the editorial staff of the Standard to get their side of the story out. This and a face to face with Mr. Schwebke met with the same results, ignorance and the printing of false information. One example of this is the reporting that the Police Officers demanded a 22% raise….WHAT A CROCK! Officers know that that kind of raise is only available to Godfrey administrators or after a handshake, wink wink, deal with the boy wonder himself. This is false information that is still printed routinely by Schwebke even though he was told it was false. Why? Because it’s what the Godfrey spin on it is…FACTS BE DAMNED! The “blu flu got the media to pay attention to the miscarriage of justice and it should be noted that the Standard only printed Troy Arrowsmith’s article after the “blu flu”, when they were scooped by the SLC print media. I know….weird.
As for the police van issue, it would seem to me that anyone in the print news business would be the first to come to the defense of anyone’s fist amendment right.
I am still a neophyte in a lot of things, but I know that if I want to read the truth I have to read a SLC based paper. I have also found the value in the Standard that I failed to recognize in the past and my dog shows it to me at least three times a day.
Dian, then why the hell did they screw it up on the first vote? All of this verbage over campaign promises, public opinion, etc. has to take a second seat to that....where were they then that got them to where they are now?
I believe that the Council made a mistake on the first vote. They made this mistake because they were informed of the employee negotiations situation for many hours by City Administrator (Mark Johnson). The Police & Firefighters unions had 20 minutes.
Because of the attention this issue received, thanks to Rudi, Dian, a whole lot of citizens, the Firefighters and Police Officers, the Council was able to get the unfiltered truth. They realized they made a mistake and based on facts, THEY FIXED IT! This admirable and modest act should not be condemned, but encouraged.
I will vote for a politician who recognizes mistakes and corrects them every time, why wouldn't you?
"I simply informed the Chief....", said Godfrey in the City Weekly.
What the Chief did with the info, and what was done to Officer Jones is NOT on the wily Mayor's hands.
Another story. How many by now? anyone keeping track?
WHY did Godfrey inform Greiner?
How did he know that Griener wanted that info on the 'police officer?'
Methinks there had been a lot of conversation an ultimatums from the 9th floor, and then Sherlock took matters into his own dirty hands.
I wonder if Colette Jones was afraid of that little smirking man following her as she walked toward her car?
Did he say, 'hey, girlie, want some candy?'
No, he said...'hey, girlie, I've lost my integrity. Wanna help me find it?'
FREE MATT JONES!
Where did they:
Well, as for compromise, I and several others have been suggesting, here and elsewhere, that perhaps an acceptable way out of the acrimony and division is to adopt the essence of former Councilman Jorgenson's "Option B." He proposed that the city or WSU or both sell to Mr. Peterson a small parcel of land at the head of 36th Street, six to ten acres, max --- sufficient for a base station for his mountain gondola up to Malan's Basin, and perhaps a few small associated shops [souvenirs, ice cream shoppe, etc], and a smallish parking lot.
He could then, using his own financing, build his gondola and develop his land in Malan's Basin as he sees fit [consistent with WC zoning regulations, and other watershed regulations]. He gets to develop his property. Ogden gets to keep its bench parklands. The city gets to build the rail streetcar system its own consultants recommended instead of the pointless downtown gondola. City bus service which already goes from downtown to the head of 36th street four times an hour in each direction delivers customers from the Intermodal Hub and Frontrunner Station to Mr. Peterson's gondola. Seems like a reasonable compromise solution to me. The city gets what, apparently, people most want --- to keep the parklands on the bench undeveloped, and to avoid sinking millions into the downtown gondola leg. Mr. Peterson gets what he most wants: a base station for his mt. gondola that will allow him to develop Malan's Basin as a ski venue.
Mr. Peterson and other LO people have, of course, rejected it. Repeatedly.
So, does it seem a reasonable compromise to you?
Curmudgeon sir...souvenirs???? Of what?
We had an ice cream shop at 36th and Harrison that melted away. Now we have Hogi Yogi...and 31 flavors.
HOW MUCH LAND IS ACTUALLY NEEDED TO BUILD A gondola tower?
I don't think CP wants to do that. I don't think he'll ever build anything up there and he doesn't want the expense and the WAIT to build his gondola! Too many years to realize a profit. Houses can built faster.
All he wants is prime land...for which he has produced nothing in the way of any study that SGO and its supporters have been asking for.
The guy is a charlatan. Kiss him good bye.
Wally:
Most gondola and tram operations have small shoppes at their bases. And he needs land at the head of 36th street not to build a gondola tower, but to build it's base station. That requires more land than a tower.
Seems to me the city can make him the offer. If he chooses not to accept it, that's his choice. But the offer would permit him to build the gondola to Malan's Basin so he can develop his land there. Without selling him the city's undeveloped bench lands. Without requiring the city to sink thirty six million plus on a downtown gondola designed primarily to deliver customers to Mr. Peterson's gondola. Sounds like a plan to me.
If Jorgenson plan is such a good one, why even give Peterson any land?
There is a parcell where the old mckay-dee used to be. that if the gondola was to go over harrison blvd. people would just clamor to take a ride.
should peterson want the public land then lets do what Rep. Hansen said to do in the bill that he was sponcering, that is to have the books of peterson's open to the public, just like the public books are open to him. come on now, what is fair is fair on both sides.
Speaking of plans, why not demand Peterson's plans for his resort? His plans for getting materials up there?
His plan for how long it would take to build his gondola? His plan for taking care of tourists, and how many he expects, and how much he will charge per person?
How about his plan for emergencies?'His plan for taking care of waste? His plan for those 1200 jobs? What are they? where does he propose to find these 1200 workers?
Are they skilled crafsmen? Kids helping passengers in and out of the gondolas? What is his plan for fair wages?
So many questions. Again...souvenirs of what?
Anon:
Well, first of all, the proposal is to sell him a small parcel, not give it to him. Secondly, WSU may not be happy about a gondola line constantly moving over the campus. Third, the land you are talking about is not owned by the city, but privately and all I've heard suggests it is not for sale. And, finally, it would involve Mr. Peterson's building a longer, and more expensive gondola. But if it could be negotiated, fine. What you are suggesting is just a variation on the Jorgensen proposal. If it can be negotiated and works better for all concerned than a base station at the head of 36th Street, not a problem from my POV. It still preserves the essentials: the city keeps its benchlands as city owned open space. The city still avoids spending mega millions on a downtown gondola leg. Mr. Peterson still gets the base station he needs to build a gondola to Malan's Basin so he can develop his land there as he would like to. So long as all those essentials remain, your variation would work for me. If it could be negotiated and was acceptable to all parties involved.
Mr. Geiger,
I, while not delighted to have a resort in Malan's Basin, would certainly not object to it, under your hypothetical circumstances, with one caveat; NO PUBLIC FUNDING and NO SELLING OR DEVELOPING OUR FOOTHILLS. If Mr. Petersen's idea is such a good one, he should have no trouble drumming up financial support...issue some stock..find some venture capitalists...go for the gold, just leave us out. An honest answer to a question.
Back to reality, Petersen is what, 50? 55? If his project will take 20 or so years to reach fruition, what's his motivation? Does he wish to fight all kinds of battles and manage the intricacies of a huge, precarious mulit-faceted project where one small misstep can snowball and cause catastrophe? Does he wish to endure such an ordeal during his twilight years, when other folks of his age and means are playing with their grandkids and maybe doing a little consulting here and there? That's a possibility. The actual resort is supposed to be the final stage of his development. Perhaps he would like to see it finished around the time of his 75th birthday.
My own guess is that he would like to make a killing off of a development in the foothills, do some stuff which makes it appear that he tried to work the rest of the deal, but it didn't pan out, and then retire insanely wealthy while the rest of us suckers are left to bemoan how we've been duped.
Thank You for highjacking this thread. You can see how easy it is to dupe me!
You said it, Anon.
My sentiments exactly!
ALL Peterson wants is prime land. He'll build some houses, sell and leave. Whey would he spend money on a gondola up to Malan's?
In the olden days, people went up there in a horse drawn wagon.
How romantic...cheaper too. Horses foal every yr. So the enterprise could take off (no pun intended) right away and fresh horses would always be available.
Dr Allen said the sunsets would be spectacular from up there, so a resort wouldn't be necessary..just pack a little picnic basket, jostle up in the buckboard, enjoy the view and come on down.
Giddyap!
Here's the deal on a town gondola. It is totally unworkable and lacks utility. The mayor and CP and Curt all know this but prefer to deny this simple fact.
The town gondola consists of three independent cableways. First one runs up 23rd from Downtown. Second one runs N-S along Harrison from 23rd to WSU. Third leg runs up the hill to Peterson Base. Leg 4 runs from Peterson Base to Malan's, while not part of the town gondola is essentially a part of it from an operational aspect as it leads to the ultimate destination and most passengers will ride it in continuum from one of more legs of the town gondola system.
Here is the fact that makes the whole thing unworkable. Bear with me. No one has delineated this because few have ridden these things as much as I have. These are facts related to it's common operation. I am aghast that another liftee from Snowbasin hasn't broken this same operational noghtmare to the public.
If, as the LO dream holds, you hop off the frontrunner onto the gondola you can stay in that car all the way to Malan's non-stop. This is not possible. This 4 miles of ropeway must be kept going in unison at matching and constant speeds to accomplish this, yet when just one segment is slowed by the loading of cargo, handicapped individual, a wind gust, or power surge THE WHOLE SYSTEM MUST BE SLOWED. This means when they want to download a cargo car from Malan's full of trash, and you just got on at the downtown hub, you will sit still until they restart the ropeway way up in Malan's Basin. The only way to avoid this choke-up is to have each individual ropeway run independently, which requires that all passengers unload and reload at each corner station. This means that the "seamless" ride from SLC includes no less than three more embarcation procedures to get to their destinations. This problem is complicated by the fact that those same disembarkers at say... 23rd street, will then have to mix with those locals wanting to load initially from said platform. This now changes the rider count with the addition of local riders. If the town leg continues to run while they load trash on up in Malan's you now get a build up of riders at the Peterson base until the Base-Malan's leg restarts. The vast carrying capacity of the system can surely deal with the varying passenger count, it is the inconvenience of continuous car changes that adds to the eventual frustration of riding such a system. These cars hold at least eight passengers but were designed for eager skiers awaiting powdery slopes who will tolerate the cramped quarters for 12 minutes. The PRACTICAL capacity of a TRANSIT gondola in town, that takes 40 minutes to run from the HUB to Peterson Base or nearly an hour to ride all the way to Malan's is half. I surely will NOT ride for an hour or even a half an hour in a fully loaded gondola car.
If the choice is to run it all in unison to avoid this multiple off-onloads, any rider who uses the town system for transit must wait in a stalled system for trash loading or whatever operational hiccup far away.
There is no where in the world where there is an installation of this complexity because the logistics are too unworkable. I challenge Curt, Matt or Chris to envision their way around these operational realities.
We are told that the gondola is silent. Not so.
If you stand under the gondola lines going to Needles Lodge (to be fair, pick a point where the cars are about 40' above you), the constantly repeating "swoosh" you hear every 30 seconds will quickly drive you nuts. This is remarkably similar to Chinese water torture.
There is no way I'd want this going over my house, yard, or business all night.
Another fly in the LO brand ointment:
Most of the EuroSkiers who come here for the Olympic downhill are obviously expert. They are up early and want the virgin groom or, if they have great natural timing, fresh powder.
Let's suppose there is a Snowbasin connection. That connection is calculated to terminate in the saddle of the bowl or cirgue above Needles Lodge. The top center of that bowl is scoured bare by the wind almost all season. That is an indication of the kind of wind forces in that particular spot of the mountain. It is the only place on the mountain that gets so scoured. Skiers rarely venture up there because it is a lengthy hike and most of the good chutes are on the way. The rare hikers have dropped in before reaching the center of that bowl. Operationally, that part of the mountain is the ski patrols' last priority.
If there was this connection, On powder days, which aside from holidays, are a ski areas best draw, either Snowbasin ski patrol has to open that ridge first thing or riders from the Malan's side will wait several hours if not days in some storm cycles.
This fact again makes the possibility of the dream connection to Snowbasin unworkable and less of a draw to the expert riders who will simply drive to Snowbasin to assure access to the goods.
The Malan's lift system will only serve the rare backcountry hound who will venture into Taylor's and Strong's. Malan's puny acreage will be chopped to chowder in 2 lift cycles. It's few actual maintained runs have a miniscule skier capacity.
A real feasiblity study would reveal these operational facts but CP knows these yet for only one reason does he run with the whole dream, TO GET THE GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY.
To Transit Tod,
In the 1998 Tram/Gondola study that the City had commissioned it was concluded that at tram was a better option for Ogden than a gondola. There were several reasons mentioned but one I remember was wind and the fact that in windy conditions, because of their weight, trams can operate when a gondla can't.
As an example of how winds effect operations, it was pointed out that the Snow Bird Tram was sometimes shut down in gusty 30 mph winds.
Our city says that our gondola system can operate in 35 mph winds which flys in the face of what the study stated.
Tod, can you add any light to the subject as to who is right, the city or the study?
Curt
The answer is yes.
No matter how you try to dress this pig up with all this hocus pocus about hypothetical companies that will come with their millions if we only build this gondola, well it is still a pig!
You really ought to get together with those Hollywood giants that young Bobby used to brag about and come up with a new script. This secret insider knowledge you guys have been throwing around for the last year or so is getting very stale and your own rabid followers are starting to drift away.
If after all this time and discussion you still cannot get what the oposition is saying about this scam, I would say that you are not listening, or you do not want to hear, or you have been blinded by the Little Lord's magic cool aide.
The latter is highly likely as I heard the LL had inadvertantly spiked his little concoction with wood alcohol instead of grain.
Oz,
Some will drift away is right. I was a vocal supporter until the golf course deal entered the fray...and I took more time to VISUALIZE the whole mess. It seemed like a very neat idea which was a natural for Ogden based on it's geographically convenient placement close to the mountain and Snowbasin. Without a 'basin connection and operational details worked out it is not feasible nor desirable. We do not need any more shopping centers and condos, ESPECIALLY in what is now wilderness. It is a disgrace and an affront to the natural beauty of Malan's Basin for it's current owner to be so eager to scar it with another cartoonish clocktower Euro-themed shopping village. Why do people go to Malan's today? To experience a little piece of alpine serenity just a short hike from the bench. Why will people go to Malan's under CP's plan? To get their nails done and shop for...
little hoods,
little goods,
little doodads from the woods.
Credit to Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa. Poofter's Froth Wyoming Plans Ahead. It's a little song about the bicentennial and what they plan to sell you...
I propose the LO folks and the mayor and CP assemble an automobile procession with 6 to a car from the HUB to proposed base, they can roll along at 22 mph up 23rd and S on Harrison down the divider through the lights with windows mostly up and no A/C.
Even on a 70degree day this will get intolerable. See how they like it then.
Anon,
I've been on the Snowbird tram in 60mph gusts. It can get pretty hairy. The operability depends on wind direction. Obviously a 60mph direct crosswind would shut it down completely. The gondolas are quite stable too until there is a direct crosswind. They would rarely shut down in town but the fact that the connecting legs are perpendicular could cause a shutdown on Harrison yet the E-W legs continue to run...again causing either system wide shutdown or lack of N-S connection making the whole thing useless. Wind is really not the big issue whether this thing is feasible but it is a factor occasionally.
Snowbasin said it best in their last statement, that from an "OPERATIONAL" standpoint it is not feasible. That means that the costs associated with snow patrol and rearranging their priorities it is too costly to put skiers on that part of the mountain in the midst of their already sizable operations.
Ultimately Ogden needs a TRANSIT DISTRICT or CORRIDOR. The mayor could save millions AND the golf course by simply leading the way to creation of such a corridor. The PRIVATE money would simply flow in to that corridor without anything more than a simple rezoning. Some locals along it's path would be hurt but the focusing of NEW development in a TOD configuration using TRANSIT as the lead instead of BOULEVARDS would be joining the NEW URBANISM already evident in America's most progressive cities.
I moved here because of the easy access to Snowbasin. I could have moved to MtGreen to get really close but it has no neighborhoods like the East Bench. In fact, there are no neighborhoods in Utah like the East Bench. That is precisely why it should stay the way it is. IT IS PRICELESS.
Any ski company relocating based on the proposed project already lack the vision to locate where the access is best and the mountain unequaled. It is already paradise here and affordable to boot. Because all the lemmings in the ski world cannot fathom a move to a place where their employees could buy a downtown fixer upper for 70g makes me wonder. It's because most people including progressive types follow the hoard and can't add the numbers themselves.
That Godfrey and co. cannot attract more based on the cost of living here alone is a testament to their misarable failure.
Tod Transit,
THANK you for all your comments about the gondola, and how it really isn't a feasible transit system.
You seem to have a lot of experience and knowledge to share. Thanx.
What a boondoggle. CP and CO ONLY want our land...he knows the gondola is a 'no fly', but he dangles it in the faces of the unthinking. Besides, that 'system' will take YEARS to build...so what use is it to anyone in the near future?
CP should build in Hunstville...he has friends there, I understand.
Does anyone really beleive Mr. Chris will build this Gondola?
Wouldn't he already have built the gondola up the mountain if he really had the money?
Do you know why Chris really wants the golf course? So he can develop it if the city approves his plan, and if not he will turn it into a parking lot for his mountain gondola!
tod transit,
I echo the thanks for your technical insights. Am I correct to recall that you have your own blog somewhere? Couldn't find the link to it, I'm afraid. I hope you will formalize your analysis and archive it somewhere for later reference--and send it to the City Council.
Just one minor correction: CP and LO have not claimed that you'll be able to ride a single gondola car all the way from the Intermodal Hub to Malan's Basin. The plans (such as they are) call for a transfer from one car to another at the foothill commercial development above the top of 36th Street.
I tried to ask CP whether passengers bound for the top of his property would have to transfer from one cabin to another at Malan's Basin. Also, if the hypothetical extension to the top of Snowbasin were built, whether there would be yet another transfer at the top of his property. The wind presumably gets stronger as you go up the mountain, so this could be pretty important. Unfortunately, I didn't understand his answers.
Thank you all for answering my question.
I too was asked a question regarding the proposal for the mountain gondola in 1998 and if I opposed it. ( Yes I did oppose it)
At that time the proposal was for the citizens of Ogden to build and pay for a gondola operation to Snow Basin.
I went to a meeting of citizens presented by the Mayors office. I spoke out against the gondola 'if' the city of Ogden was to opperate that gondola. If it was to be privatly operated I supported it
We had just built a convention center that was to drain our resourses for years to come. (As it has) I did not know then, that the golf course was also a drain on much needed taxes.
Most of the public that attended that meeting opposed the gondola system on the assumption that the gondola would draw thousands of riders and they did not want heavy traffic through the beautiful east bench neiborhoods. Nor did they want a large parking lot on the east bench. I agreed with them. Thousands of cars driving up the streets above Harrison and all the additional traffic in an already conjested area did not seem prudent.
The current prososal brings private money, private operation, and parking far away from the beautiful east bench and its beautiful people. It also stops the tax drain supporting the convention center and the golf course.
It should be obvious there is a different proposal on the table at this time. In addition, as I have stated many times, the Descente Board of directors would not let me move to Ogden even though I could show them large savings in lease and operations costs. It was the possibility that the city would connect to the mountain that encouraged the board of directors to take a risk. They believed that if they waited until the gondola was approved that the cost savings would be much less. They also viewed the project as such a clear winner for the economy, that it was likely to be approved in one fashion or another.
They recognized that Ogden had a history of making bad decisions but it cannot make 'all' the wrong choices. (They had pictures of Bonnie McDonald standing in front of a bulldozer to stop the Olympic Ice Sheet from being built in Ogden.) Yes, companies do do dilligence.
There are many other companies within the ski industry and out that are looking at Ogden the same way as the Descente Board did. When I contacted one of the presidents of a company that did eventually move here, he initially told me that there was no way that his wife would live in Ogden Utah. I wonder what changed his mind?
As for me, I am happy to be here. I would have come with or without the gondola project. I am trying to tell everyone that Ogden is not viewed nationally or internationally or even by our competitors in SLC as a very progressive city.
It is the gondola project that is creating an interest to come here and look and then to discover all that Ogden has to offer.
I recognize that having Descente move to Ogden was only important to me and makes little difference to all of you. Why should it?
Jobs, and opportunity however, should be important to all of us, where ever these jobs come from.
A few months ago, a women who worked for Utah Jobs Service came into my office trying to place WSU graduates. I informed ther that we had no more openings as we had filled all of the 15 openings that were available. (I wish I had more to offer) She expressed her frustration that there were no jobs in Ogden and how difficult her job was to find work for recent WSU Grads at home.
Ogden needs to do something different or we will continue to get the same outcome. If cable cars are the answer then get it done. If a Train Museum is the answer then get it done. If a huge ball of twine will do it then get that done. If enlisting unqualified students to WSU is the answer than go for it. If cleaning the trash from the lower Ogden river will do it then get it done.
As for me, It is clear what is bringing companies here, and I plan to do everything that I can to get more companies to visit and invest in my home town.
Again, I thank you all for answering my question. It has been fascinating getting to know you. I knew many of you by face and name only. It has enlighted me greatly.
Curt Geiger
Curt, why did the top of your post say..Anonymous said.. and then YOU signed it.
And, pray tell, where will this woamn place recent WSU grads when the gondola will take 10 to 20 years to build?? Seems like these kids would be better off learning how to start up and operate a business of their own.
Perhaps you could tell them how to be a distributor of goods..like the most recent woman who has a warehouse full of stuff that she'll ship around the 'world'.
Waiting for a gondola? Does your Japanese parent company want to pull you back to CO now that Cris's lawyer has told us how long it takes to get that scheme going?Give us a break.
Curt:
(Hope you and others are still reading this dying thread!)
400 new homes on the east bench would generate more traffic than the 1998 tram proposal would have generated. Also, it's my understanding that Peterson intends to put 100-200 spaces of public parking in his foothill development. In addition, his customers would be able to use WSU parking on weekends and holidays. So the current proposal is actually worse than the old one, in terms of its impact on east bench neighborhoods.
To the extent that all the hype about the gondola has motivated companies like yours to take a careful look at Ogden, I'm glad for the hype. As you imply, Ogden already offers so much in terms of recreation opportunities and low cost of living that once someone takes a careful look, the gondola becomes irrelevant. At the same time, I have to wonder if all the hype isn't also alienating companies who would rather deal with a mayor who lives in the real world. Our mayor must, by now, be acquiring a reputation for making promises he can't keep.
We're a laughing stock of the state!
Someone on an earlier thread, said that his relatives in Riverside, CA were asking about the goofiness in Ogden!!!
To Curt Geiger,
I appreciate you open dialog with some of us that see things from a different point of view.
I think we all have a way of seeing things from our prespective at the time. I too have memories as to what was happening them.
I was supporting the gondola in 1998 (not this time)and at that time we as a community and state, were well on our way preparing for the Olympics.
What you probably weren't aware of at that time was that we, Ogden City, had more leverage available to us to make a connection to Snow Basin than we have today or will ever have in the future because of all of the federal funds that were flowing into Snow Basin. We had funds flowing in our direction as well, some we used and some we never got to. Had we been successful, we very well may of had the feds pay for our tram system. The opponents to the project mounted a no facts, emotionally based arguement that eventually stopped the idea. If you remember, we had two possible locations to start the tram, one at the top of 27th St.and the other about where CP is suggesting. The opponents spoiled the idea of a tram so bad that neither location was acceptable.
Interestingly you mention that you were against the Tram then because it would be built and operated by the city. Excuse me but you don't think that Ogden City giving our open space to fund the gondola isn't "US" paying for it? As far as operating it, if CP development isn't as viable as he is hoping it to be, who do you think is going to be paying?
I am still preplexed and haven't heard why a ski company is so interseted in having a gondula that runs to a hotel on a plateau of a mountain and not to a world class ski resort? I mean this is a gondola to nowhere. If this is truely about Malan Basin then why haven't we seen anything about Malan Basin? Is it wrong to ask questions? In your mind you must still think (and are suggesting to ski industry types) that this development is going to connect to Snow Basin. You may be right, in 20 or more years, but that could happen then regardly of whether the CP project happens. The only difference being that by then we will have lost our open space and Ogden will have a different feel without it.
You mention the convention center and the drain on the city at the time, I agree but its not a lot different than what the downtown mall is doing to us today or possibly in the future. You can't say for sure nor can I. One of our thoughts in 1998 was that if we had the tram and could get people to stay in Ogden, then we could help the downtown area including the convention center. Your idea would have people simple passing over the top of the downtown area rather than staying in the area.
As for parking we had planned on using buses from convenient locations, not the tram base station, but we didn't commit 100% to any specific locations, in time we would have, but we never got that far because you guys were so against everything. Either proposal the one in 1998 or your current proposal will increase traffic on the streets that will service a mountain gondola. In 1998 traffic would have been skiers and it could have been minimized with shuttle buses but with CP's proposal it includes lodging and food services being provided up there. Supplies will need to be trucked to the base location, fuel deliveries, shift workers, trash removal, food service trucks and repair service vehicles. I don't see a whole lot less traffic.
I personally have been fortunate enough to have skied at several of the top ski resorts around the world and I can say that the vast majority of them use shuttle buses to move people around. In a lot of these locations a gondola would frankly have a better chance of being financially viable than in Ogden and yet these locations still find buses to be better for the job and more flexible for the changes in the volume of passenger trafic flow from the variuos locations. I see little added value (i.e. WOW)of a system from the downtown to the base location of a mountain gondola. If anything I see added risk to the viability of the whole project via increased security issues, expensive operating costs, poor and seasonal utilization, limited local user and as a conflicting system to any other system that would truely prove to be mass transit for the city.
As the golf course, let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill as they say. A lot of the losses that are reflected in those numbers are all in how the city chooses to to account for dollars. Secondly, name me one city service that the city provides it's residents that doesn't cost money. Water, lights, storm drains, sewer, airport, dinasaur park, other parks, you name it, we pay for it. The Mt. Ogden course relative to other courses in other cities is not out of line, particularly with how we arrange our finacial numbers.
As far as jobs in Ogden, we all hope that we can develop more opportunties for people in Ogden and I truely think that will happen irrespective of the CP development or not. But let's both be realistic, not everyone that wants a high paying job in Ogden is going to find one. Ogdens only so big and that's the way it is. They may have to commute, via auto or FrontRunner but they still have the opportunity to live in Ogden if Ogden provides them with the life syle that they value. Should we attempt to create new jobs, absolutely, but not at the expense of giving away our reasons for living here in the first place. The sacrifice of our open space to get something maybe 15 or 20 years down the road is not worth it now or ever.
Ogden City has a limited footprint that will allow the city to only grow so big unless we start taking away some of our quality of life aspects within our community to create more space. If we do that, then Ogden is no longer the Ogden that most of us love. You want to give away things that will change the quality of life, change the individuality of this city that make Ogden, Ogden. I'm not.
P.S. So Descente Board of Directors is behind this project and approve of all of the time and effort that you all at Descente in Ogden put into this development by Chris Peterson? Is Descente one of CP's investors?
New comments are not allowed.